[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211007201455.GA20821@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 13:14:56 -0700
From: Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: joro@...tes.org, will@...nel.org, vdumpa@...dia.com,
jonathanh@...dia.com, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
digetx@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] iommu/tegra-smmu: Rename struct
tegra_smmu_group_soc *soc to *group_soc
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 06:50:52PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > static const struct tegra_smmu_group_soc *
> > -tegra_smmu_find_group(struct tegra_smmu *smmu, unsigned int swgroup)
> > +tegra_smmu_find_group_soc(struct tegra_smmu *smmu, unsigned int swgroup)
>
> This one might be okay to disambiguate, but even here I think this isn't
> really necessary. It's already clear from the return value what's being
> returned.
The point here is to disambiguate "group", as there are quite a few
places using the same naming for different structures. You may argue
that it's clear by looking at the return value/type. But it is still
hard to tell when reading the code of its caller, right?
> > @@ -921,9 +922,9 @@ static struct iommu_group *tegra_smmu_device_group(struct device *dev)
> > }
> >
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&group->list);
> > + group->group_soc = group_soc;
> > group->swgroup = swgroup;
> > group->smmu = smmu;
> > - group->soc = soc;
>
> As another example, it's pretty evident that group->soc refers to the
> group SoC data rather than the SMMU SoC data. The latter can be obtained
> from group->smmu->soc, which again is enough context to make it clear
> what this is.
>
> So I don't think this makes things any clearer. It only makes the names
> more redundant and awkward to write.
Okay. I will drop the part of s/soc/group_soc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists